Re: hash functions should not be required to accept two arguments John Cowan 10 Nov 2015 13:58 UTC
Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit: > OK, in any case SRFI-126 is now agnostic to the maximum value a hash > function can return. User-defined hash functions may return any exact > integer, and an implementation may do what it wants for its standard > equal-hash and string-hash functions. I'm going with that too for SRFI 128. The sample implementation assumes that reducing mod 2^20 is better than taking the risk of overflow into a flonum, but that's only one possible way to do it. > SRFI-126 hash functions are now fully equivalent to R6RS hash functions > again, unless I'm forgetting something. Right. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org You're a brave man! Go and break through the lines, and remember while you're out there risking life and limb through shot and shell, we'll be in here thinking what a sucker you are! --Rufus T. Firefly